[nole_no1]

It's not like Rochus discovered a new continent. I'm sure these kind of things weren't in doubt for many of you and i'm sure these things happen. It's a shame they do but this is the reality. I mean in 2005 Puerta reached the RG final being doped didn't he? (the only relevant and most important example that comes to my mind atm)

[Punky]

Originally Posted by Burrow

You can't see the difference between a class A drug and PED's?

yes Armstrong took it into another level but in General its the same for me

[Moozza]

Rochus should retire for his fan.

[pierricbross]

Originally Posted by nole_no1

It's not like Rochus discovered a new continent. I'm sure these kind of things weren't in doubt for many of you and i'm sure these things happen. It's a shame they do but this is the reality. I mean in 2005 Puerta reached the RG final being doped didn't he? (the only relevant and most important example that comes to my mind atm)

^And he got caught. As did a whole bunch of Argentines, as Rochus mentioned; because he only knows as much as everyone else.

Being in the locker-room only allows Rochus to see Verdasco's ass and that's about it, probably the only reason he is still playing.

[HKz]

Originally Posted by ProdigyEng

I know know one is blaming a player, but there's examples people try to use to suggest Nadal, Djokovic and Murray dope, e.g the egg, but nothing on Fed... couldn't fed be accused of doping simply because he's never had a major injury?

Lol! I just had to respond in this thread just for this post. Since when does lack of injury ever correlate with PEDs? If anything PEDs harm your body especially over time.

[Sophitia36]

Originally Posted by Zepploydath

Interesting points that will no doubt offend many.

Well, strange as it may seem, I agree with him. Dunno about his accusations regarding players taking breaks, but I'm pretty sure the controls are mostly a joke and a diversion, and that people very high up make sure no one gets caught. Just as it was (and maybe as it is, still) in cycling.

No one involved in sport has an interest in revealing doping cases. And call me a pessimist, but I'm pretty sure this will never change. So, everyone says that it's "obvious" that legalizing doping is unacceptable, but I really don't see how pretending to struggle against doping is any better. What happens is that from time to time, one or two scapegoats are thrown to the dogs, in order to make the public believe that anti-doping is really working, while actually it's only a way to make sure that the others can continue in peace.

I have always had the feeling that Argentine players had been made scapegoats, possibly because their country is not as powerful as most... but I may be wrong on that, it's all speculation (but then again... my long-established belief that Armstrong and his whole team were the kings of doping was also speculation - at the time).

Originally Posted by Punky

Sport (or, primarily in North America, sports) is all forms of competitive physical activity which, through casual or organised participation, aim to use, maintain or improve physical ability and provide entertainment to participants

doping isnt one of them.

But who really believes this is a realistic definition of sport? Not of high level sport, it isn't. It's no secret that practising a sport at a high level is bad for your health, not good.
Sport is good for you when practised moderately. When it is practised intensively, it's not good, with or without doping.

People often act as if it's easy to decide when doping starts and when it stops. Sure, there are the rules, you can claim it starts when a practise is forbidden... But in more general terms, sportsmen all take stuff to improve their performances, vitamins, etc... When does it stop being "preparation" to start being "doping"? When they use special tents to create the confitions of high altitude, is that just a fair "preparation" practice, or is it already doping?

Of course, I know, it sounds outrageous to say that doping should be legalized. People are going to say that this amounts to saying athletes can damage their bodies as much as they want, etc...
But truly, we already know high level sport is bad. It's the same for anything that is taken to an extreme level. You could also claim that ballet should be forbidden, because ballet dancers often torture their bodies, the aesthetics of ballet encourage all sorts of eating disorders, and I've often heard doctors say that the body of a professional ballet dancer can be really traumatised and destroyed when he/she reaches the age of 30 or 40.
Marathon runners destroy their knees. Not even marathon runners only, I've read recently that Ferrer had stopped running and taken up cycling instead, because his knees were damaged by too much long-distance running. And I don't think I even need to mention Nadal's knees.

And the biggest problem with that counter-argument anyway (that it's irresponsible to advocate the legalization of doping because of the threat to the athlete's health), is that it assumes that doping is not already general. If you believe, as I do, that it is widespread anyway, in spite of the "controls"... then there would be no difference. If people are already doping, the only difference you make by making it legal is that you end the hypocrisy.

Now, if someone can come up with a system of controls that would actually work, sure, it would be better. But I don't see how this could be possible. "Independent bodies" are not really something I believe in. High level sports are a microcosm, and a "body" can remain "independent" only for so long when there's big business and a lot of power involved.
Maybe a strong system of checks and balances can be built in the future. That would require a complete restructuring of everything, probably. For now... I just wish they would end the hypocrisy. But given what usually happens to people who do try, I can understand why most people prefer to stay silent and save their careers. Maybe they would need a kind of giant "truth commission" for doping?...

[Serverer]

Rochus should get a lot of credit for having the balls to speak his mind. Everyone else is too busy fawning over the 6 hour marathon battles that is tennis these days.

[BauerAlmeida]

Originally Posted by Punky

yes Armstrong took it into another level but in General its the same for me

No. It's completely different. It's like saying a player should be revoked of his titles because he smokes tobacco or drinks alcohol.

[tribalfusion]

Originally Posted by latso

Would you testify if you are 25, top 30 and depend on ATP to make a good career and money?

Of course anyone in similar position would say they have no idea about that, because for one thing they couldn't prove it and for the other they would have to start college...

There are thousands of ex-players, coaches, trainers etc. The percentage of them saying ANYTHING doesn't even amount to statistical error.

If there were anything like an cycling situation here it stands to reason the conspiracy theorists would have more to go on than a washed up Rochus or trying to tie Agassi taking crystal meth to doping by analogy.

The thing about a conspiracy theorist is that no amount of an ABSENCE of evidence will ever mean anything to him.

[MuzzahLovah]

Originally Posted by philosophicalarf

*deep breath*

Nope.

Tennis does about 10 in-competition tests a year, on average. These are completely useless, since the players know they're coming, so make sure they have nothing in their systems.

It also does an average of ONE out of competition test a year. This is hilarious - top cyclists get 30+.

Players can also skip two in an 18 month period without any penalty. This means when they are doping, they simply lie about where they are so as not to get tested. Sports that actually try to catch dopers do enough tests that they rapidly get to that two point and can't skip tests any more. Tennis doesn't, so it doesn't.

All these details are published on the ITF site.
http://www.itftennis.com/antidoping/news/statistics.asp

For example, last year Nadal had "1-3" out of competition tests, and the same in 2010 (they do it in bands for privacy reasons). We know that most of those "1-3" mean 1, as they publish the total number of tests done.


Even sillier, almost all of the tests are urine. Blood tests are needed to detect a lot of substances.

There are numerous other mammoth loopholes, like slams only testing after a match. HGH/EPO in the right doses are only detectable for 10-12 hours, so players can dope themselves silly on off days.


The whole system is a complete joke.

But aren't most players in competition for almost 10 months a year basically? I'm not sure how various doping methods work, but it seems like you'd have to dope more more than like 2 months a year.

[philosophicalarf]

It's a depressing thought, and my instinct is to rage against doping legalisation. However, increasingly it feels as if the war against doping is being lost on the technical/logistical front - the drugs are not the miracle undetectables of myth, they're simply plain old EPO/HGH/testosterone, the same as 20 years ago. The problem is it's now well-known how to leave yourself clean to testing in a matter of hours - the "glow time", as the cyclists put it. Nothing short of mammoth, very intrusive numbers of tests can do anything against this (the approach cycling is indeed now using). Unless the science advances to pick up new markers for epo/hgh over a matter of days at least, it seems there isn't any other approach. As above though, not new drugs - it might just not be possible.

Alternatively, the war is being lost because the governing bodies have simply given up (see tennis).

[Burrow]

Originally Posted by Punky

yes Armstrong took it into another level but in General its the same for me

Care to elaborate on why?

One is a substance used to enhance performance and one is a substance used with no connections toward improving performance and almost solely assists in significantly deteriorating performance.

[pierricbross]

Originally Posted by Sophitia36

Well, strange as it may seem, I agree with him. Dunno about his accusations regarding players taking breaks, but I'm pretty sure the controls are mostly a joke and a diversion, and that people very high up make sure no one gets caught. Just as it was (and maybe as it is, still) in cycling.

No one involved in sport has an interest in revealing doping cases. And call me a pessimist, but I'm pretty sure this will never change. So, everyone says that it's "obvious" that legalizing doping is unacceptable, but I really don't see how pretending to struggle against doping is any better. What happens is that from time to time, one or two scapegoats are thrown to the dogs, in order to make the public believe that anti-doping is really working, while actually it's only a way to make sure that the others can continue in peace.

I have always had the feeling that Argentine players had been made scapegoats, possibly because their country is not as powerful as most... but I may be wrong on that, it's all speculation (but then again... my long-established belief that Armstrong and his whole team were the kings of doping was also speculation - at the time).



But who really believes this is a realistic definition of sport? Not of high level sport, it isn't. It's no secret that practising a sport at a high level is bad for your health, not good.
Sport is good for you when practised moderately. When it is practised intensively, it's not good, with or without doping.

People often act as if it's easy to decide when doping starts and when it stops. Sure, there are the rules, you can claim it starts when a practise is forbidden... But in more general terms, sportsmen all take stuff to improve their performances, vitamins, etc... When does it stop being "preparation" to start being "doping"? When they use special tents to create the confitions of high altitude, is that just a fair "preparation" practice, or is it already doping?

Of course, I know, it sounds outrageous to say that doping should be legalized. People are going to say that this amounts to saying athletes can damage their bodies as much as they want, etc...
But truly, we already know high level sport is bad. It's the same for anything that is taken to an extreme level. You could also claim that ballet should be forbidden, because ballet dancers often torture their bodies, the aesthetics of ballet encourage all sorts of eating disorders, and I've often heard doctors say that the body of a professional ballet dancer can be really traumatised and destroyed when he/she reaches the age of 30 or 40.
Marathon runners destroy their knees. Not even marathon runners only, I've read recently that Ferrer had stopped running and taken up cycling instead, because his knees were damaged by too much long-distance running. And I don't think I even need to mention Nadal's knees.

And the biggest problem with that counter-argument anyway (that it's irresponsible to advocate the legalization of doping because of the threat to the athlete's health), is that it assumes that doping is not already general. If you believe, as I do, that it is widespread anyway, in spite of the "controls"... then there would be no difference. If people are already doping, the only difference you make by making it legal is that you end the hypocrisy.

Now, if someone can come up with a system of controls that would actually work, sure, it would be better. But I don't see how this could be possible. "Independent bodies" are not really something I believe in. High level sports are a microcosm, and a "body" can remain "independent" only for so long when there's big business and a lot of power involved.
Maybe a strong system of checks and balances can be built in the future. That would require a complete restructuring of everything, probably. For now... I just wish they would end the hypocrisy. But given what usually happens to people who do try, I can understand why most people prefer to stay silent and save their careers. Maybe they would need a kind of giant "truth commission" for doping?...

tl;dr version: I was right about cycling like everyone else was, so I am right about tennis and no-one else is. If an athlete takes vitamins then they probably use PEDs. No such thing as independent organisations, may as well make doping legal.

[Prodigy.]

Originally Posted by HKz

Lol! I just had to respond in this thread just for this post. Since when does lack of injury ever correlate with PEDs? If anything PEDs harm your body especially over time.

You do know that there's illegal substances that can lower chances of injuries, right?

[Fed fordawin]

He's right. Tennis doping controls are a joke.
His suspicion on nadull's case gives him bonus points.

Though doping shouldn't be legalized, obviously.